Re: ugly font when printing from firefox

[Manuel Bouyer <bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost>]

On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 11:46:56AM +0200, Rhialto wrote:
> On Fri 05 Oct 2012 at 09:51:17 +0200, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
> 
> > thanks. I don't know much about fontconfig. I don't have 
> > /usr/pkg/etc/fontconfig/ (looks like firefox didn't need the pkgsrc
> > fontconfig), nor /etc/fonts/conf.d/70-no-bitmaps.conf.
> > I created a /etc/fonts/conf.d/70-no-bitmaps.conf with the entry you 
> > provided,
> > but this didn't change anything.
> 
> Ah, if you don't have the other files in /etc/fonts, it won't do much by
> itself. It is supposed to be included from /etc/fonts/fonts.conf.
> I had a quick look and these files are from the xetc.tgz set. Maybe you
> didn't have them due to the upgrade path you had on your system. (Even
> on my system I notice the files are not completely like in the xetc set:
> the set has symlinks in conf.d but I have real files there).

Yes I finally found that 70-no-bitmaps.conf was in /etc/fonts/conf.avail/
I symlinked it in /etc/fonts/conf.d/ but this didn't help.

> 
> > Note that the problem is not when displaying the page (it looks nice
> > in firefox, and not that bad in print preview), but only when
> > printing. I don't know if or how it makes a difference for fontconfig.
> 
> If you print postscript with ghostscript or some other renderer on your
> computer, I suppose the font setup may still make a difference. Print
> resolution is higher than screen resolution so possibly an enlargement
> of what looks ok on screen looks ugly on paper. Or maybe ghostscript
> makes some font substitution. (I'm guessing here too)

I don't know what firefox uses to generate postscript or pdf.
It doens't seem to depend on ghostscript.

-- 
Manuel Bouyer <bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost>
     NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference
--